Fact-checking WaPo Fact-checkers (Newt vs Romney)

The Washington Post took to defending Newt against the “4-Pinocchio” ad run by a pro-Romney Super-PAC. Newt went on to whine further about the ads against him, and then cited the above Washington Post “analysis” of the ads. WaPo “fact-checkers” essentially declared the ads were True (!) but also Not True (!) if you factored in many other things…

The Ad makes 4 points that the WaPo rebutt’s and calls “lies” (Newt is now pointing to this “fact-checking” as proof that the ads are untrue”)

So, let’s look at the What the Ad says, what WaPo says about the Ad, and the Truth about both:

1) Ad cites that Gingrich made $1.6 million from Freddie Mac noting that it helped usher along the economic collapse. WaPo does not dispute the sum. In fact, WaPo’s main complaint is that the SuperPAC says that Freddie/Fannie were primary causes of the economic collapse, a point in which most conservatives agree (and, I’d assume, even Newt Gingrich). So WaPo is more defending whether or not F-Mac helped cause the collapse rather than the amount of money Gingrich earned from them. The second point of contention is the ad claimed Newt made $30,000 an hour. Ironically, this figure was calculated by… the Washington Post. (Read it here). The figure came about because Gingrich said he spent 1 Hr a month working with Freddie Mac. For this, the Romney PAC gets a “Pinocchio.” Not for correctly mentioning Newt’s role w/ Freddie, but claiming Freddie had something to do with the economic crisis.

2) The second Pinocchio comes when the ad claims that Gingrich co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi in 1989 that gave $60 million to China’s brutal One Child policy. Despite admitting this is true, WaPo offers excuses for Gingrich (it like they are fact-checking in favor of Obama or something. Peculiar, no?) The AD declares it a lie because…

*The bill was co-sponsored 23 years ago

*Their were 144 sponsors to the bill (not just Pelosi and Newt),

*The bill didn’t actually pass

*That portion of the bill was only a portion of a much larger bill titled “Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989.”

As you can tell, since it was true, it was obviously a lie, because WaPo says so.I guess if it doesn’t pass and you weren’t the only sponsor, then you didn’t actually support it.

3) WaPo gives a third Pinocchio when the ad claims Newt supported federal taxpayer funding of some abortions. The “fact-checkers” try to dismiss it, first, by noting that this was way back in the 90’s (also when, duh, Newt was in office). Amazingly, the article even specifically quotes where Newt states he supports taxpayer funding of abortion in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Also known as “some.” (Also, many conservatives would argue against the “life of the mother” claim as McCain did in the 2008 campaign when he correctly noted that such cases were exaggerated.) Either way, the ad says “some abortions” and it is true Newt supported federal funding of some abortions. Also apparently making this ad “untrue” is the fact that Romney was once declared as pro-choice. That might make Romney a hypocrite, but it doesn’t make the ad a lie. And certainly, anyone can run ads showing Romney’s past liberalism, as if conservative and Tea Party groups were not astutely aware anyway.

4) The WaPo does not like that the ad states that Newt was the only Speaker of the House ever to be reprimanded. Again, before giving the ad a Pinocchio, they note that, yes, it is true that Newt is the only Speaker to have ever been reprimanded (confused yet). BUT it is only true because former House Speaker Jim Wright (D) resigned before he was reprimanded.

In other words, all of the points made in the Pro-Romney ad are true. However, WaPo declares them “Untrue” based on irrelevant outside circumstances that might have made them untrue if other things might or might not have happened. So remember folks…

1) If you co-sponsor a bill that eventually does not pass and there are more co-sponsors to that bill and it was 23 years ago… you did not in fact co-sponsor that bill according to WaPo

2) If you make $1.6 million dollars from a company and claim you only worked one hour a month for that company, you cannot divide salary by hours worked to determine hourly wage, according to WaPo

3) If you do in fact support some federal funding of abortions, you actually do not support some federal funding of abortions. I know this doesn’t sound logical, but the WaPo says it is.

4) If you are in fact the only Speaker ever to be reprimanded, and one other person was also almost reprimanded once, but wasn’t, you actually aren’t the only person to ever be reprimanded because the guy who wasn’t reprimanded, kinda-sorta was (or something).

Finally: Stop whining. “Attack Ads” have always been around and they always will be. Newt should know. He based the entire 1998 midterm elections on going after Bill Clinton and lost.

Second Finally: It is not an attack ad if it is true. And all the claims are true, even if WaPo says otherwise.

Third Finally: Why is WaPo stretching the truth to defend Newt?

Fourth Finally: Newt, seriously, stop whining.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Attention, friends. Newt called Romney a liar, based on a super pact ad. We all know that the ad was not sponsored by Romney. But we can’t tell from watching FOX that there are NO LIES in the ad! I just read this fact checker that said there is nothing untrue said about Newt’s record here. To see for yourself that those four Pinocchio’s are a joke, go to http://pollinsider.com/2011/12/21/fact-checking-wapo-fact-checkers-newt-vs-romney/